Sagan NFT story deleted?

What’s the story here?

Hope it’s not legal threats.


saw that and it sucks, people won’t see my comment about him partnering with Crazy Eddie to push his trinkets.
but seriously, wonder if someone got miffed over it?


Lol specialized gonna specialized, yet another reason not to pay big corporate media!

1 Like

Do you have anything to back up your claim or are you just making stuff up?


Well, the story is definitely no longer up…

1 Like

OK….so because a story got pulled, that means that Specialzied forced CT to pull it?

Quite the leap, dontcha think?


Based on the Big S having an historical penchant for litigation…. not that big a leap. Either way, chats like this are made for loosely based based suppositions. Supposit away :grimacing:


I’d say the theory is as likely as any.

I’m going with Outside canned it due to their recent ‘Web3’ product and wanting to keep reporting about NFTs positive

Speculate away!


Oh I wasn’t saying that, I was just confirming that it was true that the story was taken down. Obviously someone’s feathers were ruffled, but I’m not trying to make an argument about who it was.


“can an NFT get more people outside?”

no, no it can’t.


I think many of us would feel a little happier if a brief explanation of the (apparent) retraction was offered. I haven’t doubted CT’s integrity since the acquisition, but transparency is important.


I’m 99% certain that Specialized wouldn’t ask to pull this article. Maybe Sagan, but damn unlikely too. The simplest and most likely explanation is that Outside didn’t see it as being favourable to their NFT project.


Not at all.

I find the whole Specialized love to sue thing pretty lazy.
They sued or attempted to sue a bike shop well over 10 years ago (which was idiotic) and now everytime someone talks about Specialized, everyone who doesn’t like Specialized acts like they are suing someone different every week.

*I don’t ride any Specialized bikes.


I have.


completely agree!

I agree. IIRC those two legal entanglements about Roubaix where more a lesson in the perils of not having good oversight of your IP litigation program vs. big evil corporation set about to screw the little guy. I believe their IP counsel wasn’t in house at the time which is pretty common but obviously when you outsource some of that stuff you open yourself up to accidentally shitting in your own pants because many IP firms are pretty myopic when it comes to the impact their actions have on PR.

1 Like

Long time reader, first time forum-participator.

I’d appreciate it if we could get some editorial input as to why this story was killed.

My gut is telling me something is suspicious here, so the stakes are kind of high for me (vis-à-vis my on-going subscription).


I agree, it would be nice with some transparency here. Has the article been censored, and if so, what’s the reason? You owe it to your readers and subscribers.


Specialized’s reputation for being litigious is well-earned. It is far more tham just suing that shop over the Roubaix name. There are so many examples of them resorting to suits and threats of legal action over the years. For one example, their “enforcement” of the Horst link patent was heavy-handed and based on an improper interpretation of the patent.

That said, there is no evidence at this point that Specialized influenced this decision in any way, shape or form.